Replies

It is a valid comparision and reflects the reality that in war most principles are compromised. The principle of supporting anti-abortionism cannot allow you to join the Islamaniacs even though they support that principle. In some fights there are only two sides and you have to choose.

Was our strategy in WWII wrong? We joined forces with a nation dedicated to destroying freedom against a more virulent form of evil. We certainly can not allow our policies to be determined by such allies but must use them when it is to our advantage.

Even snakes can be of use.

Like I sadi, sorry iof the pre-qualification was not clear.

There are certain basic principles not up for compromise.

Faced with a choice to either join Islamic Fundamentalist or abject abortionists I would opt to join neither and make my own way.

In answer to your question regarding WW II, we did sell out 200+ million people to a tyrant as bad or worse than the one we defeated. I have been to Eastern Europe, ask them your question. Many of them remember.

I believe we did the wrong thing in allowing Russia at the end of the war to gfain ground as it did. That's where it went wrong my friend. Playing them off against the Nazi's was not wrong ... but giving over tens of millions to either was wrong ... and always will be.

The issue can be drawn, on certain issues, right down the line. And on liberty (free will), the 2nd amendment and abortion that is what I do and teach my kids the same. Our founders pointed this out and led the way on their own defense and firearms.

You are free to do as you please, but I will not vascilate on that point. Further discussion in that direction, pointed at trying to convince me of the reality or neccesity to do so is a pointless exercise.

"We joined forces with a nation dedicated to destroying freedom against a more virulent form of evil."

Our country chose an evil ally against an evil foe. The relative virulence of their respective evils was self-serving propaganda written into the history subsequently. Full advantage was taken, as is always done, of the victor's prerogative to write the history.

It would very likely have been possible to have manipulated the Nazis and the Soviets into fighting one another to their mutual destruction. But that would not have served the purposes of various politicians, Roosevelt in particular.

It is a valid comparision and reflects the reality that in war most principles are compromised.

Yes, sometimes there are only two choices without the option of a non-choice. The thought of taking one person's life in order to save another or our own comes to mind. Murder is still murder. If our "principles" aren't to be compromised, we should simply lay down and die now.

Thanks for your posts.